Communist Anti-War Talking Points Revealed

• The mounting war against Iraq is unjust. The explanations offered by the United States and its allies to justify this action are unsatisfactory and the reasons put forth do no justify the human and infrastructural costs that this offensive would cause. • A second UN resolution is very important, but its content could legitimate the use of force. Regardless of whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the first option must be to negotiate and use all of the diplomatic and economic means available to achieve its disarmament. The same procedures that are being followed in the case of North Korea would have to be applied to Iraq. • Preparation for this war is deteriorating the multilateral system, misusing the role of the United Nations and provoking a series of disputes within Europe and between Europe and the United States. Moreover, the war will heighten Middle Eastern and other societies of the world’s resentment towards the United States and Europe, and could lead to more terrorist responses. • Spain is currently a non-permanent member of the Security Council and must work to employ all diplomatic measures to avoid war, and must support the most favorable European option to negotiate, which has been led until now by Germany and France.

1. If the United States and the United Kingdom, supported by other governments, including Spain, continue forward they will carry out an unjust war, considering that Iraq has not violated Resolution 1441 of the UN Security Council.

– Iraq has not shown aggressive conduct towards its neighbors or to any other country during the last decade. There is no evidence that it has any connection to terrorist networks or that it participated in the September 11th operation in 2001. – Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a dictatorship that invaded Kuwait a little over a year ago, Iraq has fulfilled a large part of the demands imposed upon it by the various UN resolutions after its defeat in the Gulf War in 1991. – Testimony of former UN inspectors and former UN humanitarian mission officers report that the country does not have a nuclear arsenal and that it would be difficult for it to possess chemical and biological weapons. – The intrusive and surprise inspections carried out by UN inspectors during the past months have not discovered these weapons or the means with which to construct them. The chief of the observatory mission, Hans Blix, has asked for more time, as has the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan. Blix has reported that Iraq could be more collaborative, but, in his last appearance on January 27, 2003, he assured that Saddam Hussein’s regime had collaborated with the investigations.

2. Political regime change, in Iraq and in other countries, to democratic systems is an important objective, but it will not be achieved through war. This is a task that must be carried out by the Iraqi society with the pacifistic collaboration of the international community.

3. Linking that Iraq be punished for an alleged incompliance with the UN resolution, with other issues like terrorism and a political regime change, and the carrying out of a preventative attack – considering that Baghdad has not given any indication of aggressive activities – goes against the working norms of the international system and opens the door for the same policy to be adopted during other crises in other countries.

4. Neither the United States government nor its British counterpart has yet to present conclusive proof of the presence of WMD in Iraq. War is a serious issue. If Washington and London present evidence it must be verifiable and conclusive and not based on assumptions.

5. The current debate centers on whether a new UN resolution that approves the use of force against Iraq is necessary if it is decided that this country is a threat to world peace and security. Regarding this issue, the United States government does not consider a second resolution necessary, as they consider that the resolutions approved during the 1990s and Resolution 1441 to be sufficient. Some countries, as is Spain’s case, hold an ambiguous position towards the issue, with contradictory statements made by the president of government, the minister of foreign affairs and the Spanish representative to the United Nations.

6. But this debate should be another one; it should be about exploring other possible paths to avoid war. Should the evidence indicate that Iraq possesses or has the capabilities to construct WMD, negotiations could be carried out, as is being done in North Korea. It is in the Iraqi regime’s interest to negotiate the sale of oil and to progressively integrate itself into the international system. The threat of possessing WMD has been its negotiating card over the last decade, as also used by North Korea. Now, however, Iraq’s negotiating card is up and it can only open up its doors and deal with the issues in order to stop the war.

7. A second resolution does not guarantee that war will be avoided. The weight of the United States and the United Kingdom in the United Nations system is strong and can get them to win support by means of various pressures and economic and diplomatic exchanges. A second resolution is important, but even more important is how it is achieved and what it contains. The United States and the United Kingdom are preparing to go to war regardless of whether a second UN resolution is made or whether it turns out to be favorable for its plans.

8. US pressures and the positions taken by the Spanish government and other governments are causing divisions and eventual breaks that affect the process of the construction of Europe. It is not France and Germany that are dividing Europe but rather those responsible are the governments that put priority on good relations with Washington.

9. In Europe as well as the United States, there is a strong opposition to the war. The apparent anti-Americanism is not against American society but is rather a criticism to the current team in power and its attitudes against the multilateral system.

10. A war will increase resentment against the United States and Europe in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Law should not be stopped from being implemented out of fear of reprisals, but if an unjust action is taken it runs the risk of receiving violent and indiscriminate responses. This is a factor that should be considered. It is necessary to decrease the tension and not aggravate it. Neither war nor passivity is the alternative. Rather, the alternative is the use of all of the instruments of International Law, diplomacy, politics and cooperation.

For more information contact: Ana Belén Martín Vázquez, Communications Manager Center for Peace Research (CIP-FUHEM)

There was some Freeper mole at an planning meeting for the FEb 15 rallies. He said it was mentioned the "Europe" wanted a huge turnout. I thought at the time that he meant European antiwar orgs, but maybe I should have taken that sentence literally.

Damn those peaceniks anyway. May they all get what's coming to them.

One of the most stupid but effective arguments against US liberation of Iraq is that "the US is going to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians--like what was done in Gulf War I and Afghanistan".

So I did some reaserch and found the following facts to counter these outrageous lies.

For one thing, the US military does not target civilians like the Russians or any other Communist military forces.

(1-4 from AP):

1. ALLIES: Of more than 540,000 Americans deployed at the peak of the fighting, 148 were killed and 467 wounded.

2. 24 British servicemen killed, 9 by U.S. fire, with 10 wounded. 2 Frenchmen killed, estimated 25 wounded. Italian airman killed. Allied Arab casualties totaled 39.

3. IRAQ: Baghdad put its losses at 75,000 to 100,000 soldiers killed in action and 35,000 to 45,000 civilians killed by allied bombing.

4. U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed and 300,000 wounded, and 2,500 to 3,000 Iraqi civilians killed by bombing. It said accurate information was so scant that these figures had error factor of at least 50%.

5. The Iraqi ruling Baath party's daily, Al Thawra, said "U.S. and British air raids on civilian targets during the six-week conflict killed 8,243 civilians, including 2,010 women and 520 children under the age of four." (Iraq Resource Information Site, 2/17/02)

So, from these sources of estimates (they are only estimates and eliminating the Baghdad one), the maximum number of civilians killed during Gulf War I was maybe 8,243 (Iraqi daily) to 2,500 (USDIA). Therefore, 100,000 civilians were NOT killed in that war. Totally bogus claim. 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. None too few.

Afghanistan is interesting. There is only "source" of estimate that is used over and over by the peaceniks on the number of civilians killed during the recent Afghanistan war:

1. According to a study released 12/10/01 by Marc W. Herold, Professor of Economics, International Relations, and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire, more than 3,500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombs. He is using various estimates throughout the war to come up with a total. I haven't added up his numbers yet, but his estimate is based on newspaper estimates (some are highly questionable sources). He is also using kill-to-tonnage of bombs dropped ratios which are highly suspicious (kind of like global warming modeling).

2. Interesting to note that during the Afghan Civil War 1990-1996:
In 1994 alone, an estimated 25,000 were killed in Kabul; most of them civilians killed in rocket and artillery attacks--killed by their warlords.

3. And during the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan (1979-89), the Soviets killed 1.3 million people and forced 5.5 million Afghans (a third of the prewar population) to leave the country as refugees. Another 2 million Afghans were forced to migrate within the country. Where were the peaceniks then?

I would be interested in the other arguments that were used by the peaceniks (not the emotional ones like Bush is a killer, etc.), but the "facts" cited by them, so that we can get the real facts and better counter them the next time or in dealing with the press.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.